Comparison of Remineralization Effect of Casein Phosphopeptide Amorphous Calcium Phosphate and Sodium Fluoride on Enamel Surface after Orthodontic Debonding: An In vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the result of "casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium phosphate" with "sodium fluoride" (900 ppm) in remineralization of enamel after orthodontic debonding. METHODOLOY: This study was performed on premolars. Teeth were distributed into 3 groups A, B and C. The baseline microhardness of samples was measured. To create artificial demineralization, all samples were dipped in demineralizing solution. Surface microhardness (SMH) was re-measured for demineralization. Then, CPP-ACP was applied on teeth of gp B and NaF (900 ppm) was applied on teeth of gp C for remineralization. All teeth were cycled between deionized water and surface treatment for 12 weeks. The SMH of gp B and gp C was re-measured for remineralization. Paired t-test and Independent t-test were practiced to match MH before and after demineralization while keeping P value < 0.05. One way ANOVA was practiced to match mean difference in baseline MH and after demineralization. RESULTS: The baseline SMH of enamel decrease after demineralization. After application of test materials, mean SMH increased by 230.2 VHN and 207.5 VHN respectively. The %age of SMHR reveal the recovery rate of 41.2% in CPP-ACP and 19.1% in NaF group. CONCLUSION: For treating post orthodontic demineralized lesions, a remineralizing cream having casein phosphopeptide stabilized amorphous calcium phosphate is useful with some mineral and aesthetic improvements. KEYWORDS: Casein Phosphopeptide Amorphous Calcium Phosphate (CPP-ACP), Sodium Fluoride (NaF), Surface Microhardness (SMH), Vickers Hardness Number (VHN), Rmineralization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".